[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617180606.GA23728@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:06:06 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/performance: Fix kfree_perf_init() build warning on
32-bit kernels
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:11:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:14:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > BTW., could we please also rename this code from 'PERF_TEST'/'perf test'
> > > to 'PERFORMANCE_TEST'/'performance test'? At first glance I always
> > > mistakenly believe that it's somehow related to perf, while it isn't. =B-)
> >
> > Would it be better to call it 'RCUPERF_TEST' instead of the
> > 'RCU_PERFORMANCE_TEST' you are proposing? I feel the word 'PERFORMANCE' is
> > too long. Also, 'rcuperf test' instead of the 'rcu performance test' you are
> > proposing. I am Ok with doing it however you and Paul want it though, let me
> > know.
>
> As long as we are bikeshedding the name... How about refscale.c and
> RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST on the one hand and rcuscale.c and RCU_SCALE_TEST on
> the other? That keeps the names reasonably short and does not allude
> to perf at all.
Hearing no objections, I will go with the scale/SCALE names.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists